Archive for March, 2013

You’ve probably heard the news this week that the U.S. Senate decided to drop Dianne Feinstein’s infamous Assault Weapons Ban bill from deliberations. Many gun owners rejoiced when the news broke, but it’s not over. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced this week that, though the Feinstein bill was dropped, he will see to it that universal background checks are incorporated into a new bill, as well as amendments which will include very similar assault weapons ban language. He has promised to allow this new bill to voted on at the Senate floor, sometime after April 8, 2013.

Now is the time to contact your senators to voice your opposition to this illegal move to grab your guns. We all know that “universal background check” is a watered-down code name for universal gun registration and confiscation. Reid also explicitly plans to include language in the new bill which would put limits on high capacity magazines, as well outlawing private firearm sales and transfers.

Don’t think for a second that this is over. It is not the time to sit back and ignore what the Senate is trying to do. It is the time to get on the phone and call Washington, write Washington, email Washington, and show up in person to your senators’ regional offices until they get so tired of hearing from us that they back down.

This is a VERY thought-provoking video of what a “high capacity” magazine ban really accomplishes. It includes video clips of actual armed thugs breaking into homes and businesses, documenting how armed, law-abiding citizens deter these thugs from killing people. See for yourself and write your elected officials at both the state AND federal levels to voice your opposition to ANY magazine bans of any kind!

Texas Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst wrote a letter to Beretta USA last week, courting the giant gun manufacturer to relocate to Texas in light of recent developments in Maryland, where it is based. Maryland has an assault weapons ban pending in its state assembly, which would mean the manufacturer would be significantly limited in the firearms it could legally produce.

As if the proposed assault weapons ban being proposed by Senators Feinstein and Schumer wasn’t enough, we now have watched the latest in the gun control debacle escalate to the level of insanity: a proposed ban of LEAD BULLETS. Yes, you heard right, lead bullets. This is a proposal that was introduced this week by California Assemblyman Anthony Rendon, who represents the Long Beach area. The proposal is being pushed under a “green” agenda and it’s supposedly meant to protect the California Condor…a BIRD!

I’m not sure what these people are thinking, but it seems to me that now the state of California is broadcasting to the entire world: “We don’t care about letting our citizens protect themselves from murderers, but we do care about protecting BIRDS!” This is ridiculous. Anybody who lives in California must contact Anthony Rendon’s office as well as the other Assemblymen to voice opposition to this proposal. Rendon’s blatant goal is to generate additional interest in other states by convincing them to ban lead bullets there as well.

What is the alternative to lead bullets? Plastic?

Additionally, several states including Nevada, New Jersey, and Illinois are also considering state legislation that would add various taxes to gun purchases. These measures fit very conveniently into the anti-gun agenda by taxing guns to the point where less citizens will buy them, and thus effectively disarm even more people. Furthermore, Colorado, Washington, and other states are passing state legislation that makes it illegal to buy and sell firearms between private individuals. This comes along with mandatory background checks, which then will lead to gun registration.

Those of you that have not contacted your elected officials at both the state and federal levels need to wake up and speak your mind. Otherwise, we are about to see one heck of a lot of people who lose their rights by this summer.

When it comes to unalienable rights that were endowed upon mankind by our Creator, these rights are a whole package, and as such, are inseparable. To storm down the doors of our state capitol buildings, city halls, county courthouses, and any other public place touting the right to free speech at the expense of snuffing out the right to keep and bear arms is ILLEGAL.

The only reason any of us have the right to free speech is first because it was given to us by God, and secured for us by the first amendment. And the SAME logic applies to the second amendment. It is not tolerance for gun violence prevention groups to stand on their bullhorn and rant about the need to lock down the freedoms of American citizens to keep and bear arms, all the while attempting to deny the same people their own right to keep and bear arms!

What if the pro-gun movement were to begin spreading a message that today’s “modern” interpretation of the first amendment wasn’t REALLY meant to guarantee the right to free speech? There would be an outrage. Yet, these same anti-gun movements are using the same line of thinking to legislate out of existence the God-given right to keep and bear arms.

This will go to the Supreme Court again, and again, and again. And the people will not stop speaking up for what they believe in. It does not matter how much you try to legislate it out of existence. The right shall not be stripped from the people.

The Senate is about to vote to make all of these into federal crimes, turning gun-owning Americans into prohibited persons — meaning they would NOT be able to own a firearm anywhere in the country!

We have talked about some of the problems with Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy’s gun “trafficking” bill. Leahy apparently thinks that, if he puts a shiny label on the bill, he can ban as many guns as he wants.

But, at its core, S. 54 would make it a federal crime to violate virtually any state gun law.

Section 5 creates a new “prohibited person” classification which makes it a federal crime to transfer a gun if “prohibited by State or local law … from possessing [or] selling … THE firearm or ammunition.” [Emphasis added]

Note the use of the word “the.” We’re not talking about a person who’s banned from owning ANY firearm. We’re talking about a person who’s prohibited by ANY state law from possessing a PARTICULAR firearm.

So do you like Andrew Cuomo’s massive gun ban? He bans more types of guns than would Feinstein’s so-called “assault weapons” ban. Yet under S. 54, transferring a firearm banned by Cuomo becomes a federal crime, punishable by ten years in a federal prison — at least for New York residents and possibly for others.

Do you like California’s proposed ammunition ban? That also becomes a federal crime — at least for California residents and perhaps for others.

So you like gun licensure? A person who doesn’t have a license in New York and Illinois is also “prohibited by State … law … from possessing [or] selling … the firearm.” This becomes a federal crime.

Do you agree with D.C.’s efforts to ban firearms by imposing a microstamping requirement? Transferring a non-microstamped firearm would become a FEDERAL crimeunder S. 54 — at least for D.C. residents and maybe others.

By voting for S. 54, your senator will be making guns banned by Andrew Cuomo’s expansive law into federally banned guns, as well. He will be saying, “I like every word of gun control which Rahm Emanuel is pushing.”

By the way, Senator Leahy is trying to sell S. 54 as a supposed crackdown on gun traffickers. But there’s not one word in this bill that would punish (or prevent) what happened in Fast & Furious, where our government helped send thousands of illegal guns south of the border, resulting in the murders of hundreds of Mexicans and at least one federal agent.

Moreover, it’s currently illegal to traffic in firearms. It’s illegal to sell a gun to a prohibited person [18 USC 922(d)]. It’s illegal to serve as a straw man [18 USC 922(d)]. It’s illegal to sell a bunch of guns without a license [18 USC 922(a)]. But that’s not what S. 54 is about. The one thing S. 54 would do is to make gun bans being passed by every anti-gun state into federal crimes as well.

ACTION: Click here to contact your senators. Demand that they oppose S. 54 and speak out against it.

Believe it or not, not all government is bad. Fortunately, numerous state legislatures have drawn a line in the sand and preemptively made bold statements to the federal government promising to refuse to enforce any new federal legislation or executive orders handed down from Washington on or after January 1, 2013. Some states, including Texas, have gone a step further to make provisions in a bill to create a misdemeanor if any official attempts to enforce these federal restrictions, punishable by jail time. As of early March, here are the states that currently are considering or have already passed nullification legislation of gun control: Texas, South Carolina, Wyoming, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Utah, Oregon, North Dakota, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Alaska, Montana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Georgia, North Carolina, and potentially others.

Even in historically and predominantly anti-gun states such as California and New York, local county sheriffs are coming forward publicly to denounce the federal encroachment and are guaranteeing their constituents that they will NOT assist federal law enforcement in any manner pertaining to the attempt to restrict gun rights to law-abiding citizens.

In Texas, Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has an excellent track record of representing Texans in court to protect their freedoms, has also promised that if the state legislation passes to nullify federal gun laws, he will fight in court to protect the citizens of Texas to prevent them from being charged with any crime for resisting this overreach. This protection would also include employees of the state, as well as any state law enforcement officials.

Some of the same states (including Texas) are following in Montana’s footsteps to pass legislation which would render federal gun laws or executive orders that take effect on or after January 1, 2013 to be null and void with respect to firearms manufactured wholly within the state. These firearms would not be subject to Congress’ jurisdiction, as Congress only has legislative authority on commerce that extends beyond state lines. Intrastate commerce, however, is a function of the responsibility of the state government to regulate, as provided for under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In other words, if a gun manufacturer made an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine entirely with parts found within Texas, and the assembly took place in Texas, this bill would exempt it from being subject to any so-called assault weapons ban. Ladies and gentlemen, THIS is what we call states’ rights, and the states that are standing up to the federal overreach are shining bright in this hour when America is on trial to determine if we will or won’t remain a free nation.